|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 14:42:51 GMT -5
I know that a lot of folks are hoping a new matrix will come out again, but the latest document from USSF matches the newest matrix. It is what it is, no amount of complaining will change it...in a couple years you will be used to it. The U means exactly what it should Under, the way it is now, there are kids playing U14 who are already 14, with the new system...everyone playing U14 will be truly Under 14. For some folks it seems fair and for some it doesn't, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The kids will adjust like they always do, they just want to play.
How do I determine the birth year used for a competition? (from USSF)
Birth year registration should be based on the year in which the season ends. For example, if a season
begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the summer of 2018 (ex: 2017-18 season), the players would be
registered based on their age in the year 2018. Competitions that take place in a single year (ex: fall of
2018 only) should use that year to determine birth year. To simplify determining the age group, just
subtract the birth year from the year the season ends.
Year Season Ends – Birth Year = Age Group:
2017-18 – 2003 = U15
2022-23 – 2016 = U7
2018 – 2012 = U6
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 27, 2015 14:55:23 GMT -5
For context, that is the exact same document that USYS linked to 4 days ago when they responded to this forum admin's question on Twitter.
I downloaded the file at that time, and it hasn't changed (I just checked). So this really isn't new information vis-a-vis the more recent statement from USYS that we can expect further "changes or clarifications" from the USSF.
I should also note that I'm not personally hoping for a new matrix so much as I am hoping for clarification of the style of play at the most critical age transition. Whatever you call them, will the 04 group (and others following them in future years) play 9v9 or 11v11?
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 15:01:33 GMT -5
I never said it was new information, but another poster in a different thread was asking how to determine it new age group so I thought it would be easy to post it for others that don't feel like scrolling thru pages of the same information over and over.
Honestly I could care less if my daughter is playing U14 or U15 or U16 next year...as long as she gets to play and enjoy herself.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 27, 2015 15:06:40 GMT -5
Sorry, but I'm not really one to just shut up and take it. Stupidity is stupidity, and bad decisions are bad decisions, and if nobody calls them out they'll just think they're doing the right thing (see "The Emperor's New Clothes")
This is nothing more than a sham to distract us from the crap-awful job USSF is doing developing players for the USMNT. That job has actually zero to do with my kid. Zero. He is not now and will not be a candidate for the USMNT, but he will suffer in several ways from these shortsighted and poorly executed decisions that won't make even the tiniest bit of difference for the USMNT. And all of it may actually hurt the USWNT, which is doing great under the current "broken" system.
Luckily, in a few years (even sooner now thanks to the changes) we'll be done with the fiasco called US Soccer. I am glad he has gotten all he has out of it, and I'm thankful for the friends and experiences. But I cannot begin to describe how happy I will be to leave the foolishness behind.
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 27, 2015 15:10:05 GMT -5
I never said it was new information, but another poster in a different thread was asking how to determine it new age group so I thought it would be easy to post it for others that don't feel like scrolling thru pages of the same information over and over. Honestly I could care less if my daughter is playing U14 or U15 or U16 next year...as long as she gets to play and enjoy herself. Understood. My only point was the existence of this document doesn't mean that the matrix won't be changing yet again (re-re-revised???) given that this USSF document was in existence before USYS revised their revised matrix to include the statement that we can expect more changes or clarifications (dare I say revisions?) from USSF sometime soon. Wouldn't it be nice if they just did this behind closed doors and then issued a joint press release announcing the changes? As for me, I don't really care about the change in age groupings from a competitive perspective, as I have kids on both sides of the divide. But I do care about how they handle it from a "good of the game" perspective. As of now, they're not instilling much confidence, and they're also making changes that appear to run counter to their stated goals.
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Oct 27, 2015 15:13:47 GMT -5
I know that a lot of folks are hoping a new matrix will come out again, but the latest document from USSF matches the newest matrix. It is what it is, no amount of complaining will change it...in a couple years you will be used to it. The U means exactly what it should Under, the way it is now, there are kids playing U14 who are already 14, with the new system...everyone playing U14 will be truly Under 14. For some folks it seems fair and for some it doesn't, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The kids will adjust like they always do, they just want to play. How do I determine the birth year used for a competition? (from USSF)
Birth year registration should be based on the year in which the season ends. For example, if a season begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the summer of 2018 (ex: 2017-18 season), the players would be registered based on their age in the year 2018. Competitions that take place in a single year (ex: fall of 2018 only) should use that year to determine birth year. To simplify determining the age group, just subtract the birth year from the year the season ends. Year Season Ends – Birth Year = Age Group: 2017- 18 – 2003 = U15 2022- 23 – 2016 = U7 2018 – 2012 = U6 Great explanation, not what I wanted to hear but easy to understand. I was looking forward for the extra year, I got a youngster that would having a year to try some other sports like flag football before entering the Academy system. Maybe our club will rename the Junior Academy to start a year later. I doubt it with the arms race environment youth soccer has become.
|
|
|
Post by touchlinedad on Oct 27, 2015 15:25:07 GMT -5
For players born in the latter part of 2003, they will be skipping U13 completely and going straight to U14 if this is implemented next season. I'm sure my son will adjust but he will have to change teams as most of his fellow teammates are 04's.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 27, 2015 15:29:51 GMT -5
I just laugh at the concept of ALL 2004s playing 11v11 next year. Keep in mind thats not just top teams, thats teams 1 through 4 etc at a club. Imagine some 2nd/3rd girls teams in that age group playing 11v11, that will do no good for anyone!
(yes the top fall 2004s probably would have played 11v11 anyway under the current system, but not all clubs do!)
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 27, 2015 15:39:13 GMT -5
Sorry, but I'm not really one to just shut up and take it. Stupidity is stupidity, and bad decisions are bad decisions, and if nobody calls them out they'll just think they're doing the right thing (see "The Emperor's New Clothes") This is nothing more than a sham to distract us from the crap-awful job USSF is doing developing players for the USMNT. That job has actually zero to do with my kid. Zero. He is not now and will not be a candidate for the USMNT, but he will suffer in several ways from these shortsighted and poorly executed decisions that won't make even the tiniest bit of difference for the USMNT. And all of it may actually hurt the USWNT, which is doing great under the current "broken" system. Luckily, in a few years (even sooner now thanks to the changes) we'll be done with the fiasco called US Soccer. I am glad he has gotten all he has out of it, and I'm thankful for the friends and experiences. But I cannot begin to describe how happy I will be to leave the foolishness behind. I know you are yacked about this, and I do not blame you. You have been correct about the poor planning and even worse execution. What they are doing has created ridiculous confusion. But the combination of the really new and re-revised age matrix with the new but not revised small-sided development initiatives must be wrong. If not, you are exactly right and USSF are going the other way from the way they claim to be going. I cannot believe this is correct because if so they are actually getting smaller and smaller kids on bigger and bigger fields with more and more kids earlier and earlier. Given that they are doing the age thing regardless of what anyone says, they could fix this in a number of ways, but they won't: 1. They could say screw the year the season ends thing for determining your U designation. For instance, they could say when 2006s hit 2016, they become U10s. They stay U10s for all of 2016. Spring first and then Fall. The small sided initiatives follow them for Spring and Fall. Then when 2017 rolls around they become U11s and the U11 development initiatives kick in. Only down side to this, which I do not think is a down side, is that their name changes from "Total Awesome U10 Enterprise Cruiser Class" to "Totally Awesome U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class" during a split seasonal year. They could also name them "Total Awesome U10/U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class" for the whole 2016-2017 season but I like that less. 2. They could go with the beginning year of the whole 2016-2017 period ("Total Awesome U10 Enterprise Cruiser Class"), but that would be screwy because the Spring kids are no longer U10 in the Spring. 3. They can go with the ending year thing (2017) like they are saying they are doing ("Total Awesome U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class"), but have the small sided development initiatives tied to the beginning year (2016), but I frankly think that is sub-optimal and confusing. 4. They could abolish FOREVER the U designations. They are just 06s and the small sided development initiatives follow them as a function of their age not as a function of their U designation. Probably other ways to make this work smoothly. Frankly losing faith that they will make this work correctly. I just keep remembering that my kids will be playing with kids their own birth year. That is all I know.
|
|
|
Post by reinalocura on Oct 27, 2015 15:47:11 GMT -5
I just got all my rec teams to understand they are the same in the fall and the spring. LOL. Rec is going to be a cluster.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 27, 2015 15:47:42 GMT -5
The U.S. Soccer development academy webpage is still highlighting front and center their u12 age group program. www.ussoccerda.com/home.phpWhich has the same ppt to download that contains the confusing 2004s as the new u12s for DA for 2016/2017. Should have this been retracted.... Its worth noting as well, the u12 DA application are do Nov 6. You think clubs would need to know which birth year this involves before submitting their application.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 27, 2015 15:54:30 GMT -5
The U.S. Soccer development academy webpage is still highlighting front and center their u12 age group program. www.ussoccerda.com/home.phpWhich has the same ppt to download that contains the confusing 2004s as the new u12s for DA for 2016/2017. Should have this been retracted.... No it should not be retracted because it is correct if you are thinking about a season as being in one year (all of 2016). That is how FIFA thinks about it for things like the World Cup. But this must imply that they will change the name of DA teams in January every year. That is the only way it makes sense. Maybe they do that now.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 27, 2015 16:07:43 GMT -5
Honestly I could care less if my daughter is playing U14 or U15 or U16 next year...as long as she gets to play and enjoy herself. Aren't you are at a huge club with a deeper pool of players in her birth year so she'll be able to at least have a team. Not everyone plays at a mega club and has that option - my daughter's team will lose about five players who won't have a team at our club to play on next year at all. Or other clubs that will have to take high level players and bump them down levels if the team above or below them isn't at the same level. Which is going to make for a lot of club hopping and may displace players your daughter is playing with now? How is that something we should 'honestly care less' about? In theory it's not a bad idea - implementing it immediately with all the current select and athena teams is!
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 27, 2015 16:14:33 GMT -5
Sorry, but I'm not really one to just shut up and take it. Stupidity is stupidity, and bad decisions are bad decisions, and if nobody calls them out they'll just think they're doing the right thing (see "The Emperor's New Clothes") This is nothing more than a sham to distract us from the crap-awful job USSF is doing developing players for the USMNT. That job has actually zero to do with my kid. Zero. He is not now and will not be a candidate for the USMNT, but he will suffer in several ways from these shortsighted and poorly executed decisions that won't make even the tiniest bit of difference for the USMNT. And all of it may actually hurt the USWNT, which is doing great under the current "broken" system. Luckily, in a few years (even sooner now thanks to the changes) we'll be done with the fiasco called US Soccer. I am glad he has gotten all he has out of it, and I'm thankful for the friends and experiences. But I cannot begin to describe how happy I will be to leave the foolishness behind. I know you are yacked about this, and I do not blame you. You have been correct about the poor planning and even worse execution. What they are doing has created ridiculous confusion. But the combination of the really new and re-revised age matrix with the new but not revised small-sided development initiatives must be wrong. If not, you are exactly right and USSF are going the other way from the way they claim to be going. I cannot believe this is correct because if so they are actually getting smaller and smaller kids on bigger and bigger fields with more and more kids earlier and earlier. Given that they are doing the age thing regardless of what anyone says, they could fix this in a number of ways, but they won't: 1. They could say screw the year the season ends thing for determining your U designation. For instance, they could say when 2006s hit 2016, they become U10s. They stay U10s for all of 2016. Spring first and then Fall. The small sided initiatives follow them for Spring and Fall. Then when 2017 rolls around they become U11s and the U11 development initiatives kick in. Only down side to this, which I do not think is a down side, is that their name changes from "Total Awesome U10 Enterprise Cruiser Class" to "Totally Awesome U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class" during a split seasonal year. They could also name them "Total Awesome U10/U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class" for the whole 2016-2017 season but I like that less. 2. They could go with the beginning year of the whole 2016-2017 period ("Total Awesome U10 Enterprise Cruiser Class"), but that would be screwy because the Spring kids are no longer U10 in the Spring. 3. They can go with the ending year thing (2017) like they are saying they are doing ("Total Awesome U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class"), but have the small sided development initiatives tied to the beginning year (2016), but I frankly think that is sub-optimal and confusing. 4. They could abolish FOREVER the U designations. They are just 06s and the small sided development initiatives follow them as a function of their age not as a function of their U designation. Probably other ways to make this work smoothly. Frankly losing faith that they will make this work correctly. I just keep remembering that my kids will be playing with kids their own birth year. That is all I know. Well I'm a little 'yacked' too so I'll jump in If the premise behind this is the lack of development for the USMT then only implement it with boys soccer - the USWT - last time I checked - won the freaking world cup and is a force on the international stage. But that's as silly and short sighted as this mandate. Solution is simple - start this birth year with Academy now - grandfather existing teams - say the current U15 and older teams in Classic and Athena - since they're in high school now and may get screwed out of a year of club play with this - and then with the U13's starting Fall 2016 and maybe the rising U14's (current U13's) move to the the birth year thing. It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 16:14:21 GMT -5
Honestly I could care less if my daughter is playing U14 or U15 or U16 next year...as long as she gets to play and enjoy herself. Aren't you are at a huge club with a deeper pool of players in her birth year so she'll be able to at least have a team. Not everyone plays at a mega club and has that option - my daughter's team will lose about five players who won't have a team at our club to play on next year at all. Or other clubs that will have to take high level players and bump them down levels if the team above or below them isn't at the same level. Which is going to make for a lot of club hopping and may displace players your daughter is playing with now? How is that something we should 'honestly care less' about? In theory it's not a bad idea - implementing it immediately with all the current select and athena teams is! If your kids current age group kids are not at same level as your kid, then play up. If your kid was at lower level this will help them. Yes, I'm at a big club. Both my kids have Jan-Jul birthdays and they were the younger kids, but it didn't hurt them in fact it made them better players to play with older kids. When tryouts roll around, a decision will need to be made, not across the board but for some kids whether they should play up or stay in their age group in order to keep developing. There is no point in getting mad about it, what's gonna happen is gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 16:21:55 GMT -5
I know you are yacked about this, and I do not blame you. You have been correct about the poor planning and even worse execution. What they are doing has created ridiculous confusion. But the combination of the really new and re-revised age matrix with the new but not revised small-sided development initiatives must be wrong. If not, you are exactly right and USSF are going the other way from the way they claim to be going. I cannot believe this is correct because if so they are actually getting smaller and smaller kids on bigger and bigger fields with more and more kids earlier and earlier. Given that they are doing the age thing regardless of what anyone says, they could fix this in a number of ways, but they won't: 1. They could say screw the year the season ends thing for determining your U designation. For instance, they could say when 2006s hit 2016, they become U10s. They stay U10s for all of 2016. Spring first and then Fall. The small sided initiatives follow them for Spring and Fall. Then when 2017 rolls around they become U11s and the U11 development initiatives kick in. Only down side to this, which I do not think is a down side, is that their name changes from "Total Awesome U10 Enterprise Cruiser Class" to "Totally Awesome U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class" during a split seasonal year. They could also name them "Total Awesome U10/U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class" for the whole 2016-2017 season but I like that less. 2. They could go with the beginning year of the whole 2016-2017 period ("Total Awesome U10 Enterprise Cruiser Class"), but that would be screwy because the Spring kids are no longer U10 in the Spring. 3. They can go with the ending year thing (2017) like they are saying they are doing ("Total Awesome U11 Enterprise Cruiser Class"), but have the small sided development initiatives tied to the beginning year (2016), but I frankly think that is sub-optimal and confusing. 4. They could abolish FOREVER the U designations. They are just 06s and the small sided development initiatives follow them as a function of their age not as a function of their U designation. Probably other ways to make this work smoothly. Frankly losing faith that they will make this work correctly. I just keep remembering that my kids will be playing with kids their own birth year. That is all I know. Well I'm a little 'yacked' too so I'll jump in If the premise behind this is the lack of development for the USMT then only implement it with boys soccer - the USWT - last time I checked - won the freaking world cup and is a force on the international stage. But that's as silly and short sighted as this mandate. Solution is simple - start this birth year with Academy now - grandfather existing teams - say the current U15 and older teams in Classic and Athena - since they're in high school now and may get screwed out of a year of club play with this - and then with the U13's starting Fall 2016 and maybe the rising U14's (current U13's) move to the the birth year thing. It's not rocket science. Your argument goes against what others say. People are worried about 04 going to 11v11 next year. You are only thinking about how this affects you personally and what is best for your kid. That is the reason why bandaid rip approach is better. Some get screwed, some dont...but same argument could be made for the Jan-Jul bday kids, now is their turn to benefit. No one will be left without a team. Just like your daughters team will have 5 kids at a different birth year (im assuming older) there will be kids in the older team that will drop down to play with them. Theres kids coming in and going out from both ends, it will all work out
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 27, 2015 16:25:33 GMT -5
Aren't you are at a huge club with a deeper pool of players in her birth year so she'll be able to at least have a team. Not everyone plays at a mega club and has that option - my daughter's team will lose about five players who won't have a team at our club to play on next year at all. Or other clubs that will have to take high level players and bump them down levels if the team above or below them isn't at the same level. Which is going to make for a lot of club hopping and may displace players your daughter is playing with now? How is that something we should 'honestly care less' about? In theory it's not a bad idea - implementing it immediately with all the current select and athena teams is! If your kids current age group kids are not at same level as your kid, then play up. If your kid was at lower level this will help them. Yes, I'm at a big club. Both my kids have Jan-Jul birthdays and they were the younger kids, but it didn't hurt them in fact it made them better players to play with older kids. When tryouts roll around, a decision will need to be made, not across the board but for some kids whether they should play up or stay in their age group in order to keep developing. There is no point in getting mad about it, what's gonna happen is gonna happen. Play up? Wow. It seem that you really don't understand the problem being addressed in that post. Playing up doesn't help when fall-born kids reach their senior year. The problem there is that the older half of their age group will have gone off to college, and few will continue playing club soccer at that point. So, for those kids, it's a HUGE problem unless they're at a large enough club to field a team despite the final year attrition. At a big club, they can combine teams within the age group, but smaller clubs don't always have multiple teams in an age group, especially not by that point. They can accelerate kids from the age below to make a team at the higher age group, but that just pushes the problem down the age hierarchy. These are real and legitimate problems and people are right to be upset.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 16:28:57 GMT -5
And you can be upset until you're blue in the face but it makes no difference. Do you honestly think USSF, USYS and all others care what we think?
What im telling you is don't get mad about something that you can't fix.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 27, 2015 19:53:11 GMT -5
Your argument goes against what others say. People are worried about 04 going to 11v11 next year. You are only thinking about how this affects you personally and what is best for your kid. That is the reason why bandaid rip approach is better. Some get screwed, some dont...but same argument could be made for the Jan-Jul bday kids, now is their turn to benefit. No one will be left without a team. Just like your daughters team will have 5 kids at a different birth year (im assuming older) there will be kids in the older team that will drop down to play with them. Theres kids coming in and going out from both ends, it will all work out Well, I know I am mostly worried about how this affects my kid. Why shouldn't I be? The "big picture" is so many levels up it is irrelevant to us. "there will be kids in the older team that will drop down to play with them" -- there isn't a team one age up from my kid. Now what? We seriously might be club hopping next year simply because there is no team to play on. Lovely, huh? All the teams, brackets, and everything in select soccer right now is settled out in a relatively steady state. Small clubs in particular have teams that have molded and evolved over the years to where most people have somewhere to play. Screwing with that for absolutely no reason will hurt a lot of people. I know the big club people cannot believe it, but there are actually holes in age groups, and this will cause real problems. Actual real problems, and for more than just my kid. And it could all be solved by simplying grandfathering in the existing teams and players. Then the rising U13s would all be fine and dandy and form their "steady state" around the new rules. No muss no fuss. And again, I'm not going to just shut up and take it because I can't change it. How does anything ever change if nobody complains? I have made my feelings known through all available channels. If enough people did it, maybe USSF could realize that many people don't want what they are selling here.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 27, 2015 21:18:53 GMT -5
Well I'm a little 'yacked' too so I'll jump in If the premise behind this is the lack of development for the USMT then only implement it with boys soccer - the USWT - last time I checked - won the freaking world cup and is a force on the international stage. But that's as silly and short sighted as this mandate. Solution is simple - start this birth year with Academy now - grandfather existing teams - say the current U15 and older teams in Classic and Athena - since they're in high school now and may get screwed out of a year of club play with this - and then with the U13's starting Fall 2016 and maybe the rising U14's (current U13's) move to the the birth year thing. It's not rocket science. Your argument goes against what others say. People are worried about 04 going to 11v11 next year. You are only thinking about how this affects you personally and what is best for your kid. That is the reason why bandaid rip approach is better. Some get screwed, some dont...but same argument could be made for the Jan-Jul bday kids, now is their turn to benefit. No one will be left without a team. Just like your daughters team will have 5 kids at a different birth year (im assuming older) there will be kids in the older team that will drop down to play with them. Theres kids coming in and going out from both ends, it will all work outYour assumption is wrong. We are at a small club - excellent competitive team in Athena A but no team above us - again SMALL Club not mega UFA. The girls who are 99's have zero options to play because there's no one above them so to continue playing at all, they'll have to go to another club or quit. This mandate DOES hurt some clubs, some teams and some players. It's not that I'm 'mad about it' - I'm stating a contrary opinion to yours. But you are basing your 'get over it' attitude on the fact that your players at your big club will be OK because there's this huge pool to pull from. Not everyone has that option. Please exit your little bubble and try to see the big picture here. I haven't said diddly about field size or team formations on the field at younger ages - got no dog in that hunt. But for older U15 and up - teams, this is not all sunshine and rainbows for every team at every club. As for playing up - if full teams do that, how will the brackets be worked. A good U16 Athena A team decides to stay together and play up at U17 next year to accomodate the 99 birthdays. They're going to want to stay in Athena A - who do they displace to get that spot? How will clubs prove continuity of rosters if they have to pull players from other teams/levels to keep a team at an age group? I've put more thought and planning into making my grocery list than GA Soccer has about this new rule change. Again - the concept isn't a bad thing but the forced execution of it a full year before even US Soccer is implementing is short sighted and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 27, 2015 21:40:14 GMT -5
And you can be upset until you're blue in the face but it makes no difference. Do you honestly think USSF, USYS and all others care what we think? What im telling you is don't get mad about something that you can't fix. Considering I've seen first hand how some parents at the mega clubs get really really torked when their players are displaced if new kids come over for whatever reasons, I'll remind you of your own advice:
if and when your own player gets pushed down or the entire make up of her team changes drastically. I doubt you'll be singing sunshine and rainbows then. This does and will affect everyone - even those of you in your mega club bubbles telling the rest of us to go eat cake. Voicing dissent or contrary opinions is not getting upset or angry - it's discussing. Granted this and other forums aren't the right audience to institute any real change but it's nice to find like minded - and even those who disagree - folks to discuss this calmly and rationally. Your assumption we're all some angry mob ready to storm GA Soccer's offices is ridiculous. Don't let it upset you so much - I promise I'm not lighting the torch to lead the rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 21:40:51 GMT -5
In their slides GA soccer has stated that they will not enforce roster continuity.
I guess you and I are in different spots because my kids play at a "mega club".
Regardless of your feelings and mine....they're gonna do whatever they want. I do hope that it works out for the small clubs...I do realize it will be harder on them...and the costs associated with this (new size goals), but I still think it will work out, maybe some dual rostering, maybe some kids will go to your club during tryouts.
Have you talked to your club about this and what their thoughts are about all this?
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 27, 2015 21:46:15 GMT -5
And you can be upset until you're blue in the face but it makes no difference. Do you honestly think USSF, USYS and all others care what we think? What im telling you is don't get mad about something that you can't fix. Considering I've seen first hand how some parents at the mega clubs get really really torked when their players are displaced if new kids come over for whatever reasons, I'll remind you of your own advice: if and when your own player gets pushed down or the entire make up of her team changes drastically. I doubt you'll be singing sunshine and rainbows then. This does and will affect everyone - even those of you in your mega club bubbles telling the rest of us to go eat cake. Voicing dissent or contrary opinions is not getting upset or angry - it's discussing. Granted this and other forums aren't the right audience to institute any real change but it's nice to find like minded - and even those who disagree - folks to discuss this calmly and rationally. Your assumption we're all some angry mob ready to storm GA Soccer's offices is ridiculous. Don't let it upset you so much - I promise I'm not lighting the torch to lead the rebellion. My daughter's team has pretty much changed every year...players come and players go. She's the only left from the original u9, change doesn't phase me. The entire makeup of her team has already changed and we survived.
|
|
|
Post by infoguy on Oct 28, 2015 8:38:27 GMT -5
I do believe we see this through the lens of how it affects our kids. Of course we do. My kid has a Summer birthday, so my kid has typically been among the youngest on the team. Those were the rules, and we had no choice. My kid performed well - if your kid is a good performer in Select, then you should have nothing to worry about in terms of future performance. My kid also played for a small club, until last year. I feel the overarching challenge with small clubs is recruiting - some do it well, some DON'T. That is, if this change impacts a small club's competitiveness greatly, I believe it's a symptom of a larger disease of that particular club. It is a numbers game, no doubt, but I feel confident predicting which small clubs will continue to put forward competitive teams.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 28, 2015 9:21:36 GMT -5
I just think US Soccer is going to have shift up their standards chart by one year to accommodate their mandates, ie, u14 is the first age group kids play 11v11
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 28, 2015 9:40:55 GMT -5
I just think US Soccer is going to have shift up their standards chart by one year to accommodate their mandates, ie, u14 is the first age group kids play 11v11 The problem is that does not work for the International standard. U13s are playing full sided.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 28, 2015 9:45:39 GMT -5
I do believe we see this through the lens of how it affects our kids. Of course we do. My kid has a Summer birthday, so my kid has typically been among the youngest on the team. Those were the rules, and we had no choice. My kid performed well - if your kid is a good performer in Select, then you should have nothing to worry about in terms of future performance. My kid also played for a small club, until last year. I feel the overarching challenge with small clubs is recruiting - some do it well, some DON'T. That is, if this change impacts a small club's competitiveness greatly, I believe it's a symptom of a larger disease of that particular club. It is a numbers game, no doubt, but I feel confident predicting which small clubs will continue to put forward competitive teams. Recruiting isn't the issue for rural clubs. It's population.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 28, 2015 9:45:55 GMT -5
I just think US Soccer is going to have shift up their standards chart by one year to accommodate their mandates, ie, u14 is the first age group kids play 11v11 The problem is that does not work for the International standard. U13s are playing full sided. dang it! Well then their entire small sided mandate is a bunch of BS then! Somebody really didn't think this through. In our current system, the mandate would have benefited our current u12 age group where the race is on for 11v11, but now the mandate really will be 11v11 vs 9v9 for those age kids.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 28, 2015 9:58:10 GMT -5
The problem is that does not work for the International standard. U13s are playing full sided. dang it! Well then their entire small sided mandate is a bunch of BS then! Somebody really didn't think this through. In our current system, the mandate would have benefited our current u12 age group where the race is on for 11v11, but now the mandate really will be 11v11 vs 9v9 for those age kids. Or they could go with my suggestions #1 or #4 (see above). Otherwise, you are correct. USSF have done exactly the opposite of what they said they were trying to accomplish.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 28, 2015 9:58:35 GMT -5
dang it! Well then their entire small sided mandate is a bunch of BS then! Somebody really didn't think this through. In our current system, the mandate would have benefited our current u12 age group where the race is on for 11v11, but now the mandate really will be 11v11 vs 9v9 for those age kids. Or they could go with my suggestions #1 or #4 (see above). Otherwise, you are correct. USSF have done exactly the opposite of what they said they were trying to accomplish. I wonder if the current silence from US Soccer is they just figured that out themselves.......
|
|